Palin and Libya

Just as she has become irrelevant, Sarah Palin has started staking out less absurd foreign policy positions:

Still, Palin clearly stated a foreign policy philosophy that she says dates back to the Reagan administration – but in many ways came off as a five-point folksy version of the Powell Doctrine.

What has been interesting to watch is how Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann’s positions on Libya seem to be gaining more traction inside the GOP compared to the pro-escalation views of Rubio, McCain and the like. I don’t assume that Palin’s shift is all that significant, but it may be an indication of just how great the gap isbetween her former neoconservative advisors and the rank-and-file of the party that Palin has tried to cultivate. It is probably also an indication that those advisors don’t see Palin running in 2012, or perhaps they assume that she isn’t going anywhere in the 2012 race if she does run. It may suggest that Bachmann has struck a chord with conservatives on Libya, and Palin is attempting to play catch-up.

The personnel shift carries an ideological charge. Scheunemann, the former executive director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, is a longtime neoconservative stalwart, as is Goldfarb, a former reporter and protege of Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They crafted for Palin a policy platform and voice reflecting an eagerness to use American force. The pair, who helped Palin with press and debate prep in 2008, were also something of Palin’s last link to Washington’s political establishment.

But Palin parted ways with that aggressive internationalism in a speech yesterday, condemning U.S. involvement in Libya and laying out a more cautious philosophy of the use of force. Schweizer has articulated a more skeptical view of the use of American force and promotion of democracy abroad.

If Palin’s views can be so noticeably changed by acquiring new advisors, it doesn’t inspire any confidence that she has given any more thought or has any better understanding of these issues than she did when she was repeating the phrases Scheunemann and Goldfarb were giving her.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 5 comments

5 Responses to Palin and Libya

“My other thought: The surge in Iraq works. The surge in Afghanistan works. There’s an Arab Spring. The world obviously needs American strength and leadership more than ever. And now everyone (even Palin, to some degree) decides, hey, time to back off? It’s foolish substantively and politically. Do Republicans really want to run as Obama-lite in foreign policy?”

-William Kristol

Sorry, but I hadn’t read anything so brazen in sometime. Maybe Billy-boy is really starting to worry? Or is he just lining himself up to make the leap back to the natural neoclown home: with the democrats. Either way, I think Palin is just verbally running against anything Obama is for. Nothing else to see hear. Move along….

“What has been interesting to watch is how Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann’s positions on Libya seem to be gaining more traction inside the GOP compared to the pro-escalation views of Rubio, McCain and the like.”

I love the sound of this. Do you have any specific examples to point to, or is this more of a general feeling?

Part of it just an impression, but there is some evidence that skepticism on Libya has a significant following in the GOP and among elected officials. Rand Paul’s resolution may have received just 10 votes, but they included nine other Republican Senators. Lugar didn’t support that resolution, but he has been outspoken in his criticism of the intervention otherwise. For whatever it’s worth, Ensign voted for that resolution, and he and Hutchison have introduced a resolution stating that the Libya intervention is not in the national interest. By my count, that’s at least 12 Republicans in the Senate who have expressed some misgivings or doubts about Libya. Aside from Kirk, Rubio, McCain, and Graham, I don’t know of any Republican Senators that have been seriously arguing for an escalation of U.S. involvement. It’s not much, but it is something.

“If Palin’s views can be so noticeably changed by acquiring new advisors, it doesn’t inspire any confidence that she has given any more thought or has any better understanding of these issues than she did when she was repeating the phrases Scheunemann and Goldfarb were giving her.”

Exactly. Wasn’t Palin the one complaining last summer about our dismally small defense budget, on the grounds that several other (very small) countries spend more as a percentage of GDP? Note that Scheunemann and Goldfarb were the ones to sever their professional relationship. Had she been the one to dismiss them, it would be easier to believe that her positions had changed as a result of time and reflection.